Last Updated:
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself
The Court offered to appoint a Supreme Court lawyer of her choice free of cost and cover her travel expenses to Delhi. (PTI file photo)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday urged a woman litigant to appear in person to argue her case, after she insisted on continuing via video conferencing (VC). The Court even offered her travel expenses and free legal aid, but she declined, citing personal and work commitments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by the woman, who was representing herself.
When the Court asked why she could not attend physically despite being offered assistance by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), she said she had to care for someone in her family, lived far away, and was also working, Live Law reported.
She added that technical issues from previous hearings had been resolved. However, Justice Datta observed that she kept looking at someone off-screen when the bench asked her questions. She first said they were co-petitioners but later claimed she was the only petitioner, leading the bench to caution her against making contradictory statements.
“Livelihood is more important or you want to argue your case? You can’t spare even one day to argue the case you are pursuing?” Justice Datta asked. The woman replied that her livelihood came first.
The Court then offered to appoint a Supreme Court lawyer of her choice free of cost and cover her travel expenses to Delhi, but the woman stood firm on her VC request.
“What is the problem with my arguing? I want to understand that. I want to understand what’s the problem in my VC appearance,” she asked. Justice Datta replied, “We are at a loss to understand what prevents you from coming here!.”
“If you want your submissions to be heard, it has to be in-person. We are requesting you to come to Delhi. All the expenses will be borne by NALSA,” he added.
The case is linked to the Lalita Kumari judgment. The Court pointed out that previous rulings held that contempt petitions cannot be filed by someone not party to that case. Justice Kant said the woman could be allowed to argue that those rulings need reconsideration.
Before the hearing ended, the Court asked her to make up her mind. She replied, “I have made up my mind.”
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d…Read More
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More
view comments
- First Published:
Source link
[ad_3]
